Quality of life from a randomized trial of laparoscopic or open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases

Background

Most treatments for cancer cause a decline in patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Limiting this decline is a universal goal for healthcare providers. Using minimally invasive instead of open surgical techniques might be one way to achieve this. The aim of this study was to compare postoperative HRQoL after open and laparoscopic liver resection.

Methods

This was a predefined substudy of an RCT comparing open with laparoscopic liver resection. Patients with colorectal liver metastases were assigned randomly to open or laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing liver resection. HRQoL was assessed with the Short Form 36 questionnaire at baseline, and 1 and 4 months after surgery.

Results

A total of 280 patients were randomized, of whom 273 underwent surgery (129 laparoscopic, 144 open); 682 questionnaires (83.3 per cent) were available for analysis. One month after surgery, patients in the laparoscopic surgery group reported reduced scores in two HRQoL domains (physical functioning and role physical), whereas those in the open surgery group reported reduced scores in five domains (physical functioning, role physical, bodily pain, vitality and social functioning). Four months after surgery, HRQoL scores in the laparoscopic group had returned to preoperative levels, whereas patients in the open group reported reduced scores for two domains (role physical and general health). The between-group difference was statistically significant in favour of laparoscopy for four domains after 1 month (role physical, bodily pain, vitality and social functioning) and for one domain after 4 months (role physical).

Conclusion

Patients assigned to laparoscopic liver surgery reported better postoperative HRQoL than those assigned to open liver surgery. For role limitations caused by physical health problems, patients in the laparoscopic group reported better scores up to 4 months after surgery. Registration number: NCT01516710 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Cost-effectiveness of liver transplantation in patients with colorectal metastases confined to the liver

BACKGROUND

Patients with non-resectable colorectal metastases are currently treated with chemotherapy. However, liver transplantation can increase the 5-year survival rate from 9 to 56 per cent if the cancer is confined to the liver. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of liver transplantation for colorectal liver metastases.

METHODS

A Markov model with a lifetime perspective was developed to estimate the life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), direct healthcare costs and cost-effectiveness for patients with non-resectable colorectal liver metastases who received liver transplantation or chemotherapy alone.

RESULTS

In non-selected cohorts, liver transplantation increased patients' life expectancy by 3·12 life-years (2·47 QALYs), at an additional cost of €209 143, giving an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €67 140 per life-year (€84 667 per QALY) gained. In selected cohorts (selection based on tumour diameter, time since primary cancer, carcinoembryonic antigen levels and response to chemotherapy), the effect of liver transplantation increased to 4·23 life-years (3·41 QALYs), at a higher additional cost (€230 282), and the ICER decreased to €54 467 per life-year (€67 509 per QALY) gained. Given a willingness to pay of €70 500, the likelihood of transplantation being cost-effective was 0·66 and 0·94 (0·23 and 0·67 QALYs) for non-selected and selected cohorts respectively.

CONCLUSION

Liver transplantation was cost-effective but only for highly selected patients. This might be possible in countries with good access to grafts and low waiting list mortality.

Hemiarthroplasty compared to internal fixation with percutaneous cannulated screws as treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: cost-utility analysis performed alongside a randomized, controlled trial

We estimated the cost-effectiveness of hemiarthroplasty compared to internal fixation for elderly patients with displaced femoral neck fractures. Over 2 years, patients treated with hemiarthroplasty gained more quality-adjusted life years than patients treated with internal fixation. In addition, costs for hemiarthroplasty were lower. Hemiarthroplasty was thus cost effective.

INTRODUCTION

Estimating the cost utility of hemiarthroplasty compared to internal fixation in the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis (CUA) was conducted alongside a clinical randomized controlled trial at a university hospital in Norway; 166 patients, 124 (75%) women with a mean age of 82 years were randomized to either internal fixation (n = 86) or hemiarthroplasty (n = 80). Patients were followed up at 4, 12, and 24 months. Health-related quality of life was assessed with the EQ-5D, and in combination with time used to calculate patients' quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Resource use was identified, quantified, and valued for direct and indirect hospital costs and for societal costs. Results were expressed in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

RESULTS

Over the 2-year period, patients treated with hemiarthroplasty gained 0.15-0.20 more QALYs than patients treated with internal fixation. For the hemiarthroplasty group, the direct hospital costs, total hospital costs, and total costs were non-significantly less costly compared with the internal fixation group, with an incremental cost of €2,731 (p = 0.81), €2,474 (p = 0.80), and €14,160 (p = 0.07), respectively. Thus, hemiarthroplasty was the dominant treatment. Sensitivity analyses by bootstrapping supported these findings.

CONCLUSION

Hemiarthroplasty was a cost-effective treatment. Trial registration, NCT00464230.